View Single Post
Old 10th November 2017, 12:40 PM   #13
Self Employed
Remittance Man
JoeMorgue's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,759
In general I'm against mass voting for a party. We should be voting for people, not their membership in some club.

That being said the clustering of people in political demographics is somewhat inevitable.

Another interesting method of voting, not necessarily political voting but more off the cuff "A Group making a decision" style of voting is Approval Voting.

(I'm mostly straight copying this scenario from CGP Grey's "Voting for Normal People" lecture)

Let's say that everyday an office of... 10 people have to decide where to go to lunch and there are 3 restaurants close enough; Burger Barn, Veggie Shack, and Meat Hutt. Meat Hutt has amazing steaks but it's vegetarian options are pretty much ice cubes and croutons. Veggie Shack has a salad bar that would shame a jungle biome but no meat options. Burger Barn has a wide variety of decent burgers, including several fairly okay veggie options.

Asking people where they "prefer" to go using a standard "Who wants option 1, now option 2, now option 3?" style and there's a good chance either of the superior but exclusive meat or veggie options is going to win.

But if you ask people to list all of the options that are acceptable to them, that is allowing them to vote more than once, and pretty much everybody is going to be at least okay with the middle of the road option.

Now this form of "voting" doesn't really work in politics for many reasons; you sort of have to start with a smallish pool of reasonable choices and yeah this leads to the fewest people getting exactly what they want, but raises the probablity of the most popp

It is interesting, on a purely thought experiment level, to think what would have happened had the ballot in November of '16 just had four questions: "Are you okay with Trump being President? Are you okay with Clinton being President? Are you okay with Stein being President? Are you okay with Johnson being President?" and (let's just hit I believe and say everyone answers truthfully) what the results would have been if who ever the most people were "okay" with got the job.

All of this does sort come back to a question of the purpose of democracy; which is a "better" outcome; 55% of a population being really happy with the outcome but 45% of the population being angry or 90% of the population being just okay with the outcome?
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top